Standing Committee G

[Part I]

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Clause 19 - Charging

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 70, in 
clause 19, page 9, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
 '(1) Subject to the following provisions a fire and rescue authority may charge a person for providing a service to them if:
(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment, to provide the service to them, and
(b) they have agreed to the provision.'.—[Richard Younger-Ross.]

Edward O'Hara: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 71, in
clause 19, page 9, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert— 
 'If a fire and rescue authority decide to charge for taking an action of particular description—'.

Richard Younger-Ross: The table that the Minister provided entrances me. I am sure that we will come back to it. I might have spotted an error, and I will look at it in a minute.
 We were dealing with charging and seeking to establish a more liberal regime. Perhaps the Minister and his staff have to work until the early hours of the morning dealing with orders to authorise local authorities to charge for this, that or the other. Instead of the Minister burning the midnight oil, it sounds far more reasonable to ask that the fire authority should have the right to charge for something if it decides that it wishes to do so. Our amendment would not affect the exemptions that are clearly stated and with which we do not disagree—that is, an authority could not charge for extinguishing fires or for protecting life and property in the event of fire. Likewise, the other conditions of the clause would still apply—we have not sought to amend those. We are simply trying to free the process and give the power to the authority rather than to the Secretary of State. 
 To give an example, a fire authority may have particular difficulty with false alarms—burglar alarms going off in industrial estates and repeat offenders—and it therefore wishes to charge for the second or third call-out. The amendment would allow that to happen and give the authority the flexibility to charge.

Philip Hammond: I am curious about that example. What would happen if a fire had in fact broken out? The hon. Gentleman is drawing a distinction between an alarm
 that turns out to be a false alarm and an alarm caused by a fire. I expected him to exclude everything related to fire from the capability to charge.

Richard Younger-Ross: That is not what the authorities and senior officers have advised us. They would like some flexibility to deal with the cases in which there is a continuously faulty fire alarm in a building, yet the owners take no action to put it right. Schemes might be introduced to ensure that such charges are not made, such as regular maintenance being carried out on the alarm. Of course the fire brigade would always attend if an alarm went off—the brigade would respond to that as normal—but if it repeatedly transpired that it was turning up and there was nothing but an alarm going off, with no smoke or fire in sight, the authority should be allowed to charge. I am not saying that it should charge; simply that it should be free to do so.

Philip Hammond: I am broadly sympathetic to the thrust of the amendment, but it requires that the person paying has had to agree to be provided with that service at a charge. It seems to me that the owner of premises who knows that the fire brigade will turn out anyway for an alarm—because it has to, as there might be a fire—is unlikely to agree to pay a charge in the event that it turns out to be a false alarm, and would be foolish to do so.

Richard Younger-Ross: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have prefaced my argument by saying that the amendment is a probing one. From the amendments the hon. Gentleman proposed earlier, I know that it is often possible for an amendment to have unintended consequences. We do not want any unintended consequences to result from an acceptance, which is why I am sure that I shall withdraw the amendment once we have heard the Minister's response. I hope that the Minister will accept the main thrust of what we are saying—how we can free authorities to charge, rather than putting everything through the Secretary of State.

Philip Hammond: The clause deals with the ability of a fire and rescue authority to charge for services. I will confine my remarks as narrowly as I can on all the groups of amendments in the hope that we might have an opportunity to discuss the broader issues and the compare-and-contrast exercise between clause 19 and the provisions of the Fire Services Act 1947 in a clause stand part debate.
 We are broadly sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 70, which largely reflects the intentions of our amendments Nos. 46 and 47, to which we will come in due course. I do not, however, believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment goes quite far enough, and I think our amendment No. 48 will underline the requirement to go a little bit further than he is suggesting. We have no argument with the principle of limiting the power to charge to discretionary services only, except for one issue—that of medical co-response—that we need to address. We also strongly support the removal of the process of order making by the Secretary of State. However, the 
 local freedom to charge can only work if it is strictly limited to the non-statutory, non-core functions of a fire and rescue service.

Nick Raynsford: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why?

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I should qualify my remarks. The discretion would only work in a way that is satisfactory and acceptable if it were limited to the non-core functions. I certainly do not want fire and rescue authorities to be able to charge for carrying out their core, front-line emergency work, and I imagine that other members of the Committee—I am looking at the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe)—would also be pretty horrified at the thought of a fire and rescue authority turning up at a road accident scene with its invoice pad in hand.
 I am interested by the Minister's intervention. I anticipated that his defence of the structure involving the Secretary of State in authorising charging in certain areas would be that he needs to ensure that fire authorities are not able to charge in areas where it is not appropriate, or where the public would be outraged were charges to be imposed. No doubt, we will come that debate in due course.

Richard Younger-Ross: On the point about core services, at the moment the ambulance service charges for attending a road traffic accident. I am puzzled about why an ambulance should be able to charge and a fire brigade should not.

Philip Hammond: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in Parliament when the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 was passing through Parliament. I was deeply involved in consideration of that Bill. We argued strongly that there were dangers in introducing charging in that way. The hon. Gentleman will see, because he will have studied our later amendments, that our aim is to ensure that we do not extend that regime any further, and that we create a level playing field between fire and rescue authorities—or in the case of delivering medical care at the scene of an incident, between fire and rescue authorities and NHS ambulance service trusts.
 As I was saying, the local freedom to charge can only work satisfactorily if it is limited to non-mandatory services. We will, I am sure, return to that theme in succeeding groups of amendments. We also agree that, since the amendment, as the Liberal Democrats have tabled it, is limited to charging for discretionary services, it is appropriate that the user should have had to agree in advance. That will create difficulties with the example of response to automatic fire alarms that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) gave. Although I had not thought about it, I confess that the automatic fire alarm response issue is quite complicated. Clearly, it is directly related to the possibility of an incident of fire, and it would certainly be wrong to say that the fire authority does not have to respond unless the chaps have agreed to pay if it turns 
 out to be a false alarm. However, responding to such alarms must be one of the bigger drains on fire authority resources. Clearly, the matter needs to be considered much more carefully than I have yet had a chance to do. 
 Broadly speaking, we are sympathetic to the thrust of the amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, when he looks at amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, that we need to go that little bit further and deal with the issue of medical co-response.

Nick Raynsford: Amendment No. 70 is phrased in the same terms as section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. That provision deals with discretionary services provided by best value authorities. Those are services that the authority is allowed to provide, but that are not obligatory. Section 93 of the 2003 Act allows authorities to make charges in such cases. Although we consider section 93 appropriate in the wider local government context, we do not consider that a similar provision would be a suitable substitute for the charging provisions in section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is why we introduced clause 19 instead.
 The first effect of amendment No. 70, as a mirror of section 93 of the 2003 Act, would be to restrict the services for which authorities can charge to those that they are not obliged to provide. That might well have been an appropriate response had the 1947 Act provisions remained in force. Under the 1947 Act, fire calls are the only calls to which authorities are obliged to respond, although in practice they tend to respond to a much larger range of requests. The Bill makes provision for that to change. We have imposed a number of additional response requirements on the service in relation to traffic accidents and other non-fire incidents, but we gave a commitment in the White Paper that the power to charge for dealing with non-fire incidents would continue. Our proposals fulfil that commitment and continue the prohibition on charging for extinguishing fires or for protecting life and property in the event of fire. 
 Not only would amendment No. 70 involve a breach of that White Paper undertaking and cut across existing practice on the part of various fire and rescue authorities—if the hon. Member for Teignbridge has been in contact with chief fire officers and representatives of fire authorities, I have no doubt that they have drawn his attention to current provisions—but it would have the possibly unintended effect of frustrating clause 19(3), which is designed to enable authorities to recover the cost of dealing with an incident from a responsible third party in circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to seek to charge the person for whom the service was provided. Let me give an example. The authorities might seek to charge third parties for effecting the release of people from stalled lifts. Many of those incidents arise from a failure to maintain the lift system adequately, which is usually the responsibility of the building management or owner, and certainly not that of the passengers.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explore the example a little further, and then I will be happy to give way to him. Amendment No. 70 would require the authority, if there were to be any possibility of recovering the costs incurred, to obtain the consent of the person who is liable to pay the charge before effecting a lift release. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that may not be desirable as far as the passengers are concerned.

Philip Hammond: I wanted to inquire whether persons of the Minister's exalted status ever have the misfortune to cross the road to Portcullis House, where the lifts regularly appear to be stuck. I am reliably informed that that building has a most responsible and thorough landlord, so such things are not always down to incompetence or malice on the part of the landlord.

Nick Raynsford: I did not say that they were. I said that failures involving lifts may often be attributed to a failure to maintain them adequately. For all the undoubted expense—and the skills of the architect responsible—I would not hold up Portcullis House as a model example of procurement. I was the Minister responsible for construction during the period that that building was procured, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the rethinking construction initiative for which the Government were responsible pointed to a much more positive way forward in procurement practice. On reflection, I hope that he will agree that that was not a good example.

Richard Younger-Ross: I speak in honour of my former profession; architects are blamed for everything. It is mechanical engineers who deal with lifts.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that I paid tribute to the undoubted architectural skills of Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect responsible, but referred to Portcullis House as not a good example of procurement practice. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted a malfunctioning automatic fire alarm as another instance where advance approval would be almost impossible to obtain in order to effect a charging regime. Frankly, there are much more complex issues to be discussed in relation to malfunctioning fire alarms. In the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee a while ago, I highlighted the potential perverse consequences of charging in such circumstances. That could lead to the owner of premises removing an automatic fire alarm for fear of paying charges for a malfunction, which in many cases would increase the risk. It is not a simple matter. If there were a regime for charging, the hon. Gentleman would be right. The owner of premises would simply have to decline to give advance consent to make the provision ineffective. 
 The recent Select Committee report on the fire service to which I referred noted the potential for authorities to recover the costs of dealing with traffic accidents from insurers in a manner similar to that for which provision exists in the NHS. The requirement in amendment No. 70 for express prior consent of the person to be to charged would prevent any such approach, as would excluding duties other than firefighting from the scope of any charging regime. Indeed, the amendment would run entirely counter to the view expressed by the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) used to be a member. The Select Committee made a clear point and recommendation in paragraph 77 of the report: 
 ''We believe there needs to be more research conducted on the potential for Fire Authorities to charge for activities of the Fire Service. As a statutory role of the Service expands, we expect Government to support Authorities as they seek to recoup costs.'' 
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has often been only too keen to quote the Select Committee in order to have a go at the Government, but the Select Committee's view runs entirely counter to that which he has put forward. The hon. Member for Teignbridge, whose hon. Friend has been a member of the Select Committee, should reflect that if we are to be serious about our response its report—which we are—the kind of amendments that both Opposition parties have tabled are not the right way forward. The amendments are highly prescriptive, they restrict the scope for fire and rescue authorities to take decisions in the light of local circumstances, and they would in some respects have perverse consequences, of which I have highlighted a couple. 
 Amendment No. 71 is consequential on amendment No. 70. It reflects the proposal that the latter would require each authority to determine from first principles which service it would provide for a charge, rather than taking decisions in the light of any order issued by the Secretary of State under the provisions of clause 19(1). As the effect of amendment No. 70 would be to restrict drastically the scope for authorities to make charges, the supposed freedom is illusory. 
 I ask the hon. Member for Teignbridge to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross: I understand what the Minister is saying, but the provision is not as prescriptive as he is trying to argue. I accept that the wording of the amendment is not exactly perfect, so we might return with a similar amendment at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in
clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
'(c) the discharge of the functions conferred on the authority under section 8(1);'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 47, in 
clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
 '(d) the discharge of any functions conferred on the authority under section 9 (other than charging to another fire and rescue authority in respect of functions discharged in that authority's area by virtue of section 9(2))'. 
Amendment No. 48, in 
clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(e) the provision of emergency medical assistance in circumstances where such assistance would be provided without charge by an NHS Ambulance Trust'. 
Amendment No. 49, in 
clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(f) the provision of anything which it is the authority's duty to provide under section 6(2)'.

Philip Hammond: The tone for this series of debates has been set by the Minister. He has the audacity to describe as highly prescriptive the Opposition amendments that would tackle the centralising provision. He will hide behind the Select Committee report.

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: Well, the Minister has already quoted from the Select Committee report, which reminded me how happy I am to quote it when it is critical of the Government—and I shall continue to do so. However, the Minister will find that the Select Committee is not with the public on the issue, who object to paying again for services that they have paid for through their council taxes and which some people already consider a major imposition.

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, will he estimate the likely consequences for the council tax given the restrictions that he wants to impose under the amendments, bearing in mind the existing practice of fire and rescue authorities? Has he estimated the costs to fire and rescue authorities and assessed the consequences for the council tax?

Philip Hammond: The Minister's question is interesting. He pre-empts a question that I was about to ask him. How much revenue does he estimate will be raised by allowing charging for road traffic accidents and how much revenue is currently collected? While it is true that, under the 1947 Act, fire authorities have an ability to charge for that work, very few do so. I should be interested to know how much the Minister believes is involved. Will he inform the Committee of it? Will he also tell the Committee his estimate of the amount of revenue that he expects to be collected as a result of charging?
 Given the dramatic changes that will take place, the whole thrust of our debate this afternoon will be that it is not simply a question of business as usual, carrying forward the provisions of the 1947 Act. If the Minister is sending a signal that charging will be a significant part of future funding of fire and rescue services, it will be taken up by them. We may anticipate that arrangements will be not a continuation of what has happened in the past, but a step change towards a regime of charging for services other than fire.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious error by claiming that the Government are seeking to make changes to the existing framework. We have made it clear that there needs to be more work on that, but the Opposition are seeking to make a fundamental change. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Select Committee, he will see a reference to the evidence from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It refers to its current activity in advice and consultancy on fire safety that generated revenue of approximately £700,000 in 2000. That helps to resource our fire prevention work and is the equivalent of some 25 firefighters. Under the hon. Gentleman's amendments, that provision would become unlawful. Will he tell us how the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will source those 25 firefighters—or will there be a further charge on the council tax?

Philip Hammond: The Minister needs a fast forward button because the example that he has quoted is dealt with specifically by an Opposition amendment that we shall be discussing in a moment. That would explicitly exclude commercially provided arm's-length consultancy services specifically because the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has raised with me the issue to which the Select Committee report refers.
 I thought that the Minister would come back to the question of revenues that might be raised under charging for road traffic accidents, and I am happy to engage with him on consultancy charges when we come to that. I do not disagree with him at all. Where consultancy is provided on an arm's-length basis to commercial customers, there is no reason to limit charging to cost recovery as the Minister does in the Bill. In those cases, it would be perfectly sensible to allow a commercial rate of charging. Subsection (2) identifies extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fires as the only two ring-fenced areas in which the Secretary of State cannot authorise charging. The amendments would extend the exclusion. 
 Amendment No. 46 would extend the prohibition to all functions conferred by clause 8(1): rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in road traffic accidents. Road traffic accident rescue work is to become a statutory duty and a core function of fire and rescue authorities. Apparently, it would have equal status and standing with the core firefighting duties in the 1947 Act. It would not be right to allow charging for one and not the other. 
 Maintaining the position of the 1947 Act requires treating road traffic accidents the same as fires—not, as Ministers continually assert, distinguishing them from fires. Of course, the 1947 Act prevents only charging for fires, but it effectively prevents charging for statutory duties. They are to be expanded, and it is sensible that the exclusion of charging should be extended to cover those areas that will become the core statutory functions of the fire and rescue services. 
 It is an inconvenient fact, but not material to the philosophical debate, that an insurer will usually be involved in a road traffic accident. I suggest to the 
 Minister that there is a piece of pure opportunism going on. The opportunity to charge a landlord for rescuing an elderly lady from a lift or an insurer for rescuing somebody from the wreckage of their car presents a superficially soft and attractive target for the Government. Those people paying the bill will not necessarily generate large amounts of sympathy compared with the person being rescued. It is a very dangerous route for the Government to take.

Nick Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the argument that the existence of charges in certain circumstances could act as an encouragement to good practice? I have previously referred to good lift maintenance. Does he not accept that the knowledge that there might be a charge for having to release people from a malfunctioning lift could act as a very useful stimulus to actions that would improve public safety?

Philip Hammond: The Minister is absolutely right, and I am glad that he is embracing the market concept of pricing as a way of managing people's behaviour. He has in mind a rather convoluted means of achieving the good maintenance of lifts. Fines under health and safety legislation for the inadequate maintenance of lifts might be a better route to achieving the same objective.
 The Minister is creating a very complicated regime from which there will inevitably be substantial exemptions and arguments over individual cases. As with the NHS powers to charge patients—I do not refer specifically to road traffic accidents but to NHS general powers—those responsible for managing the system will determine that it is too complex and costly to make it worth while. 
 The amendments address the real concern that the Government have set out to tax by stealth large sections of the population of what I will call middle England, and none more so than the motorist. Increasingly, motorists are a source of revenue, and there is little correlation between the costs imposed on them and the services or infrastructure provided for them and financed by those imposts. I fear that the Government are preparing to transfer the burden of road traffic accident work on to the long-suffering motorist by charging insurers for road traffic accident extraction, which will lead to higher insurance premiums. 
 I had expected a vehement denial of any such thing from the Minister. However, his remarks so far suggest the opposite: he is openly embracing the concept of widespread charging for road traffic accident extraction work. Of course, the power to charge for such work was in the 1947 Act, but we are now considering a wholesale reorganisation of our fire services—a complete change of direction. 
 We are also considering extreme financial pressure. When the Minister is not happily ensconced with us, he is busily engaged in beating various local authorities over the head in an attempt to squeeze the proposed council tax increases. He will know that there are few authorities proposing higher increases than the 
 combined fire authorities, which have special circumstances to deal with. In that environment, anything short of a ministerial ruling out of charging road accident victims for their own rescue will be taken as a steer that charging should be imposed. 
 The Minister is reaching again for the Select Committee report; perhaps he should reach for the Bain report. Professor Sir George Bain clearly appreciated the scope for charging, but he is not an elected politician and does not have to answer to the public for his proposals. The Minister will have to answer to the public if he intends to transfer the burden of road traffic accident rescue work from the council tax payer to the motorist through insurance premiums. Motorists are also council tax payers, of course. Ministers should be up front and clear. If that is not the Minister's intention, then amendment No. 46 should be accepted, to exclude the possibility that the Government will go down such a route in the future and to end for ever the discussion about what they will or will not do. 
 The Government have a job on their hands to sell modernisation to the public anyway. People already fear that modernisation simply means cuts. If the Minister doubts that, he should look at the letters columns of any local paper in an area in which changes to manning, staffing or appliance levels at fire stations have been announced. I know that very well because two fire stations affect my constituency. One is having an appliance removed, and another is moving from full-time working to daytime-only manning. I make no comment on the appropriateness of those decisions; they are perfectly in accordance with the Surrey fire authority's draft integrated risk management plan, but they have created an outburst of public concern. 
 I hope that the Minister accepts that, rightly or wrongly, people are fearful that modernisation means cuts to services. If they see their local fire station closing or moving to part-time manning, and at the same time their car insurance premiums rise by £100 or so a year to pay for the cost of fire service interventions in road traffic accidents, they will be clear that the Government's agenda is one of cuts, not of improved services.

Stephen McCabe: I would not want in any sense to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to check that I have understood him correctly. One thing about insurance is the notion of liability. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in a vehicle accident with a clearly liable party—someone who has caused the accident through their own irresponsible behaviour—that person and their insurer should be free of any liability, and that that liability should automatically be the responsibility of the non-motoring 83-year-old council tax payer? Is that his position? Has he ruled out the possibility that in any circumstances there could be charging in such a situation? If he does, why is that fair?

Philip Hammond: It is double tax. The motorist is already paying—paying and paying again.

Stephen McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have finished responding to his last intervention. Now the hon. Gentleman wants to charge the motorist again. [Interruption.] If the Minister thinks that a charge to insurance companies is not a charge on the motorist, he is gravely mistaken. I did not hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green suggest that the police should be able to charge people for their attendance at a road traffic accident. Should the police be able to charge burglary victims for finger-printing their homes? We have a concept of certain services that are provided out of general taxation—services that we regard as public services, which should rightly be provided in response to emergencies and matters such as those we are discussing.
 There is another reason why we should tread extremely carefully before we think about attacking the motorists via insurance premiums: there are already millions of uninsured drivers on our roads. That is a growing social problem, with very wide ramifications. Although by definition it is impossible to know how many, the numbers are almost certainly increasing very rapidly. The hon. Gentleman will know about this. I read a very interesting national newspaper article just last week, which referred to an area in the west midlands—not in Birmingham—as one of those where there has been the highest increase in the incidence of drivers apprehended while driving without insurance or, indeed, any other form of documentation. 
 Anything that further increases the incentive for drivers simply to ignore the law and drive without insurance, thus further increasing the burden on the law-abiding motorist who pays his insurance premiums and whose insurance premiums have to contribute to a fund that, effectively, soaks up the problem of uninsured drivers when they are involved in accidents, makes a bad situation very much worse. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route. The motorist, frankly, has had enough.

Stephen McCabe: To suggest that the best way to avoid fraud is to diminish individual responsibility is a wonderful concept; I have not encountered that philosophy, but it is an interesting notion. I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point that I put to him. Insurance is about the idea of liability. What is the purpose of an insurance policy if, when one is liable, one is not liable for cost? The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he would prefer to transfer that liability to the non-motoring 83-year-old pensioner. That cannot possibly be fair.

Philip Hammond: I am honestly struggling to understand where the hon. Gentleman's logic would take him in the taxation system in general. Should childless people have a lower rate of income tax because they do not send their children to school? Should we get a refund on our taxes if we go a whole year without visiting a doctor? The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should take—

Edward O'Hara: Order. The debate is drifting away from the precise terms of the amendments. It might we wise and better for all of us if we return to the confines of the amendments.

Philip Hammond: You are absolutely right, Mr O'Hara. I was enjoying the debate so much, I had not noticed. All I can say to you in mitigation is that I do not think it was my fault that it went in such a direction.
 Amendment No. 47 would extend the exclusion on charging to functions that are conferred on a fire authority under clause 9—other emergency functions. Let us look at the draft statutory instrument that the Minister has already published to see what kind of instances we are talking about. A fire authority would not be able to charge someone for chemically decontaminating them after a terrorist attack, for rescuing them from the sea after a collision or for rescuing them from floodwaters rising around their ankles in their home. That is the kind of core service that the public would expect to be paid for out of taxation and funded as a proper public emergency response service. Amendment No. 47 would specifically allow for the charging of one fire authority by another where under proposed section 9 the Secretary of State has conferred functions on a fire authority requiring it to operate outside its own area. That is right and proper and we would not want to interfere with that. 
 Amendment No. 48 moves beyond the statutory services and deals with an important point, which I hope the Minister will respond to in a different tone from the one that I anticipate he will use in response to amendment Nos. 40, 46 and 47. There is no reference in the Bill to co-response initiatives, but I hope—and I am pretty confident—that he will confirm that it is the Government's wish to encourage medical co-response by fire services. It was one of the issues that was constantly referred to in the many debates and discussions that we had during the fire dispute. 
 Amendment No.48 would preclude charging for emergency medical assistance of a type that would be free if given by a national health service ambulance trust. That addresses the concern raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge that in certain circumstances—wrongly in my view—NHS ambulance trusts are allowed to charge for work related to road traffic accidents. I am not seeking to roll that back or to restrict fire authorities from doing the same. With amendment No. 48, I am seeking to limit the circumstances in which fire authorities could charge, so that it is not simply an accident of fate that determines whether the fire engine arrives before the ambulance and a person has to pay for a certain level of first-response medical care at the scene of an incident—which may or may not be a road traffic accident. It is essential that the public can be confident that they will not be charged for medical assistance simply because the fire brigade is first on the scene. 
 I hope that that is a sensible and necessary exclusion. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that he can give assurances that a victim will not be lying at the side of the road listening to two sets of 
 sirens coming from different directions and hoping that the ambulance will get stuck at the traffic lights—sorry, that the fire engine will get stuck at the traffic lights, so the ambulance arrives first and the victim is not at risk of being charged by the fire authority for the medical attention that it will deliver.

Nick Raynsford: I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to his original formulation of words before he corrected it, because if his amendment were agreed to, exactly that perverse incentive would apply—the unfortunate individual would be hoping that the fire engine got there first rather than the ambulance.

Philip Hammond: Not at all; if the Minister examines amendment No. 48, he will see that it says specifically that there should not be a charge for
''the provision of emergency medical assistance in circumstances where such assistance would be provided without charge by an NHS Ambulance Trust''.

Nick Raynsford: The effect of amendment No. 46 would be to make it impossible for a fire authority to make a charge, whereas, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there are circumstances where an NHS ambulance would be able to. That is precisely the circumstance where there would be perverse incentive to encourage the arrival of a fire engine rather than an ambulance to deal with a road traffic accident. He cannot seriously be suggesting that.

Philip Hammond: There are all sorts of perverse incentives that are arising out of this debate. The Minister is mistaken—

Nick Raynsford: No.

Philip Hammond: It is conceivable. The exclusion referred to in amendment No. 46 is
''rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents in its area'' 
 ''protecting people from serious harm''. 
The duties in clause 8(1) do not extend to the delivery of medical attention. We have tabled amendment No. 48 specifically to deal with co-response initiatives. Amendment No. 49 excludes charging for the provision of services or material that fall within clause 6(2) which deals with fire safety. The group of amendments prevents charging for statutory functions that the public rightly believe they have already paid for through the council tax system. It goes further by ensuring that medical assistance provided by virtue simply of the fire brigade being first on the scene should be free at the point of use in all circumstances where it would be free if the ambulance service had been first on the scene. 
 My note says, ''I hope that the Minister will be able to agree to this group of amendments,'' but something in his tone makes me wonder whether he will.

Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend has been talking about cases in which an ambulance arrives before fire brigade. What would happen if the fire brigade arrived first and gave the injured car driver
 or passenger first aid care, and then the ambulance turned up and took away the injured person? Would there be double charging in that case?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend's point underlines why such emergency incident scenes are not susceptible to this kind of invoicing approach. Some years ago when Labour was in opposition, its Members used to rail against the very idea of invoices or charging mechanisms, even between authorities within the health service. They used to portray it as an absurdity that people requiring medical care should be subject to a paperwork trail process. My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there might be two ambulance services at the scene, or two fire services if the incident is close to a fire authority boundary. The mind boggles about such a case. The public is much more receptive now than they were even a decade or two ago to the idea of charging where it is sensible to charge—to the idea of a mixed economy in the delivery of services—but we would be testing the public's tolerance if we were to move into charging for front-line emergency responses. I do not want to paint absurd pictures but if we were to go down the route that appears to be suggested, where would it end? Would we be looking next at charging for police attendance at incidents? One could go on forever. The public will simply draw the line at front-line emergency response attendance being charged for.
 We can have a different debate about people trapped in lifts. There are issues that need to be resolved about such incidents. As I understand it, they do not come within the functions conferred by clauses 8 or 9. Rescuing people from lifts would be undertaken under clause 11—unless the Minister intends to make directions under clause 9. We can debate those matters, but the core issues are road traffic accidents and rescue from flooding and from accidents on the water, and dealing with the consequences of such incidents. It is hardly credible to think that any Government—even the present one—could consider charging people for chemical or nuclear decontamination, and I hope that the Minister can rule that out for a start. 
 This debate is about excluding charging from the kinds of areas that have been mentioned so that in an emergency, the emergency first-response service continues to be paid for by the taxpayers and the victim does not have to think twice about whether he is willing to dial 999.

Richard Younger-Ross: When the hon. Gentleman began, I was sympathetic to him because he said some kind things about the general principle of our amendment. I was looking through the amendments and thought that there might be something I can support. I am sympathetic to one of the amendments—I shall return to it in a moment—but the general principle behind the amendments seems to be that the hon. Gentleman is making a plea to the editor of the tabloid papers saying that the motorist is hard done by. The only matter to which he did not refer was speed cameras, but I am sure that he would have worked them into his remarks if he could have.
 The hon. Gentleman is misleading when he says that the victim pays. Charging for attendance at a motor accident does not involve the victim alone; it is paid from insurance. It is the person who drives into the back of someone else's car, not the victim, who ultimately pays, because it is claimed from the insurance. I am not saying that such matters are exclusive—there are exemptions—but, as a general principle, the person to whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green referred, the person at fault, who actually pays, not the victim.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not the case. The insurer of the person at fault might pay, but those who pay include the victim, the person at fault and the passing motorists who have not had an accident for years. All motorists pay because insurance is based on the principle of pooled risk.

Richard Younger-Ross: Insurance is based on that principle, but if someone has an accident, by and large that person pays extra on his premium the following year and the money is clawed back. The person who is responsible for the accident—the motorist—pays for something that he has caused. In a pooled-risk scheme, the person must accept that he is paying not necessarily for his faults, but for other people's faults. We can get into a complex argument about liability and fault, but the clear principle is that people must be responsible for their actions. I therefore have no difficulty in opposing amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 49.

Philip Hammond: Why does the hon. Gentleman not extend that principle further? Why does he not make attendance at fires subject to an assessment of whether the person who started the fire, perhaps accidentally, acted foolishly or did not take the necessary precautions? Why not extend personal responsibility still further?

Richard Younger-Ross: We could have an interesting argument on that subject. However, existing legislation already establishes a principle in respect of road traffic accidents. Proposals to allow a charge in that respect would be reasonable. We would have to consider other issues fully before disregarding them. The instance of a stuck lift is a good example: the Minister is right in principle—by and large, lifts break down because they have been poorly maintained. The fire alarm example I gave earlier was caused by poor maintenance, which is why such issues should be dealt with by a charge. We must say to people that they must be responsible and not keep wasting taxpayers' money, which is what they do when they call out services needlessly.
 However, the hon. Gentleman is right about amendment No. 48. It would be iniquitous if a fire engine turned up at a scene and a charge was made, while the local ambulance service did not make a charge. I am sure that, given the Minister's beaming smile, he will say some kind words about the amendment.

Adrian Flook: It would appear that, through clause 19, the Government are keen to confer a stealth tax. We Conservatives want to keep the charges limited to non-mandatory or discretionary cases. Earlier, we heard about the Minister and his lift. It appears that he had a fear of getting stuck in the lift, not because he suffered from claustrophobia but because no one would let him out.
 We have heard a lot about road traffic accidents. I would like to ask the Minister some questions about Somerset fire brigade and the consultation that has take place over the past few months. The brigade has announced that it is keen to make it its policy that it will not attend a fire alarm from commercial premises unless someone—one presumes from that company—is in attendance. When the consultation began in October, it was decided, based on a decision by Oxfordshire that had been implemented just nine or 10 months earlier, that the Somerset brigade, too, would not attend alarm calls from commercial premises unless someone was there. 
 During that consultation process, I wrote a letter of concern because I did not think that the proposal was practicable in Somerset, which is somewhat more rural than Oxfordshire. It is easy in an urban area for a key holder to get to premises at the same time as the fire brigade, but in a rural area the managing director or company secretary could live 40 or 50 miles away and the fire brigade could be in attendance at the scene much more quickly. I am concerned that, on the back of what Oxfordshire fire brigade is doing, Somerset fire brigade is setting the standard that it will only turn up if someone is there. It will either not turn up if no one is there, or the company will be charged to ensure that the fire brigade always turns up without a key holder having to be present. I hope that the Minister addresses that concern. 
 We accept that in certain circumstances charging makes sense, but it appears that that Government are being opportunistic. I can see what will happen in Somerset, especially as Somerset fire brigade comes wholly within the responsibility of the county council, which is, in any event, having to be innovative in the ways in which it increases charges. The council could look at clause 19 and consider its new approach to turning up—or not—at commercial premises, and might leave businesses in my constituency and the rest of Somerset bereft of fire care. They might also be told in a nice annual letter that if they pay a little extra directly to Somerset fire brigade they may get permanent cover with or without key holders in attendance.

Nick Raynsford: This has been an interesting debate. It reveals a great deal both about the views of the parties and the Opposition's political positioning.
 Amendment No. 46 is designed to prevent any charge being made for actions taken in dealing with road traffic accidents that do not involve fire. How the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge could suggest that that is somehow compatible with his scenario about the use of defibrillators by fire authorities is difficult to understand. As he knows well, clause 8(1)(b) states specifically that
 ''A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of— 
 (b) protecting people from serious harm, to the extent that it consider it reasonable to do so, in the event of road traffic accidents in its area.''

Philip Hammond: The Minister quotes defibrillators rather bafflingly at me. Heart attacks are not the most common consequence of road traffic accidents. Can the Minister explain to what extent it is reasonable to make provision for protecting people from serious harm in the event of a road traffic accident? What medical equipment and training should firefighters have when attending a road traffic accident?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman tries to lure me into territory into which I shall not go. That matter is properly a subject for individual fire authorities to determine on the basis of expert professional advice. The point is that there is considerable experience of the benefits of the first responder on the scene being able to give expert medical assistance, including the use of defibrillators. Heart failure can occur in road traffic accidents and it is possible to respond to such an event.
 The Opposition's position on the matter is wholly opportunistic. They seek for crude electoral reasons to criticise the Government for supposedly introducing loads of new charges. Of course, their allegation does not stand the slightest degree of scrutiny, as we will explore in the next few minutes. I just thought that the Committee should be aware of what this discussion is all about. It is not about the long-term interests of the fire and rescue service. It does not recognise the fact that fire authorities already charge for a considerable number of activities. The hon. Gentleman has only to read our consultation paper to know the extent to which charging is already a reality and the extent to which it would be severely cut if the amendments were accepted. 
Mr. Hammond rose—

Nick Raynsford: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to explain to the Committee how he will avoid the inevitable increases in council tax that his amendments would lead to if he were to push for the restriction of charging that already applies in extensive circumstances among fire and rescue authorities.

Philip Hammond: I thought that the Minister would give us a figure. With all the resources at his disposal, we still have not heard a figure from him. In dealing with road traffic accidents and the other emergencies to be defined by the Secretary of State in a draft statutory instrument under clause 9, how much charge is levied at present?

Nick Raynsford: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some figures that are clearly shown in our consultation document: 63 per cent. of responding fire authorities charge for clearing up after chemical or other spillages, including spillages at road traffic accidents; 55 per cent. charge for clearing up domestic or commercial flooding; 38 per cent. charge for effecting entry to
 premises; 35 per cent. charge for the hire of crews and equipment for special events; 30 per cent. charge for the hire of salvage or other major equipment; 28 per cent. charge for providing water in non-emergency situations; 23 per cent. charge for providing fire reports; 20 per cent. charge for removing dangerous structures; 18 per cent. charge for lift rescues. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) seemed to think that I was obsessed with lift rescues, but they are well known as an activity that the fire and rescue service perform on many occasions. It is right that they should do so, and it is also right that in certain cases charges should be made if it is clear that there has been negligence on the part of the people who are responsible for management of the premises.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thought that the hon. Member for Taunton was most disingenuous in suggesting that no one would come to the Minister's rescue. His fear of lifts is surely really a fear about who he would get stuck with.

Nick Raynsford: You have no fear of being trapped in a lift with anyone, Mr. O'Hara. I shall not pursue that matter.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps the Minister has genuinely misunderstood what we are trying to do, but I do not think so. The list that he has just read out is extremely interesting, but not one of those circumstances in which fire authorities currently charge would be caught by our amendments. The amendments are not about rescuing people from lifts, filling swimming pools with water, draining ponds or hiring out heavy lifting equipment. They are about rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of a road traffic accident, and dealing with other emergencies that the Secretary of State may specify. Such emergencies could include rescuing people from flooding, but would not include pumping out their basements.

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that the first item I mentioned was clearing up after chemical or other spillages, including road traffic accidents. Such accidents feature among the list of restrictions that the hon. Gentleman and his party seek to impose.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way again?

Nick Raynsford: I want to make some progress. When we considered amendment No. 70 a short while ago, I explained the reasons why we wished to leave open the possibility of charging for actions performed at a road traffic accident, but were not proposing a change to the status quo without further consultation. Indeed, the Select Committee specifically recommends further research on the subject.
 As I highlighted in an earlier exchange, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is normally only too happy to quote the Select Committee, but on this occasion he chooses not to. I wonder why? After careful consideration by a large number of people, including the Bain review and the Select Committee, it is obvious that what is required is sensible, thoughtful, 
 intelligent analysis of the appropriate circumstances in which charges may be helpful or useful, and those in which they would not, rather than the knee-jerk reaction of the Conservative party seeking, for crude opportunistic electoral purposes, to present itself as the friend of the hard-done-by motorist. That is the cheap political opportunism of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Teignbridge, who—for a number of reasons that he will recognise later—was the most perceptive speaker in the debate, highlighted that factor. 
 The Bain report recommended that the issue of charging should be considered further. That report has been widely praised for its thorough and perceptive analysis of the needs of the fire and rescue service. It referred to several areas in which brigades could charge, including charging insurance companies for the costs associated with road traffic accidents, as the NHS does, charging commercial operators for fire safety advice and charging for false alarms from automatic fire alarms. That would provide an incentive for people to ensure that they are not calling out the fire service unnecessarily, and the potential for cost recovery will depend on the services offered by brigades. The report went on to say that the sum involved might amount to £100 million or so over the next three years. 
 The Government gave a cautious and measured response to that. The Select Committee report highlights my evidence in which I stated that this was one of the very few areas in which we have probably not gone fully along with the Bain recommendations. Bain suggested there was scope for a very substantial increase in revenue through charging. There are complex issues involved and there are risks of deterring people from taking necessary safety measures if they decide that the cost is prohibitive. Our wish is that each fire authority should consider carefully where there is a genuine and legitimate case for a charge that will not inhibit action to improve fire safety, but should not pursue charging schemes that might have an adverse impact on that all-important wider objective. 
 That is the position of Her Majesty's Government. We stand by that position and we reject the opportunistic stance of the Conservative party, and the pursuit of charging beyond what is reasonable recommended by some advocates who believe that to be a way to raise additional revenue that would benefit the fire and rescue service.

Philip Hammond: Having stated his position, will the Minister now clearly explain in plain English whether the Government will allow charging for routine extraction of victims from road traffic accidents? If so, will they make a distinction between drivers who are insured, whose insurance will pay, and drivers who are uninsured, who would have to pay themselves?

Nick Raynsford: As I have already made absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, the Government do not believe that any changes should be made to the current
 status quo without further thorough research, analysis and consultation. We are proposing a measured way forward, which, as I indicated by reference to my evidence to the Select Committee, leaves individual fire and rescue authorities a proper degree of discretion, as opposed to the highly prescriptive approach that the Conservatives are opportunistically pursuing while they argue the case for freedom from prescription elsewhere. The matter should be approached in a sensible, thoughtful manner, not through a knee-jerk response.
 Amendment No. 48 seems to be aimed at ensuring that no anomaly arises between the emergency medical treatment that a person might receive at the hands of the fire service, compared wtih that provided by colleagues in the ambulance service. It would prevent any charge being specified for treatment that would have been free if provided by an NHS ambulance trust. Situations in which this might be relevant include incidents at which the ambulance service is not the first in attendance, and areas in which much valued co-responder schemes are in operation. It is not clear how that is compatible with amendment No. 46, which would impose a blanket ban on charging for the functions discharged by a fire and rescue authority at a road traffic accident. 
 However, having explained to the Committee why we cannot accept amendment No. 46, I should say that I am much more sympathetic to the aims of amendment No. 48. If Opposition Members will accept that there are circumstances where cost recovery may be appropriate, I am happy to consider an amendment designed to ensure that there is no inconsistency of policy or practice between that to be adopted by the fire and rescue service and that for NHS ambulance trusts. I should be interested to hear the response of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is keen to argue the case for no charging in any circumstances—for reasons which, as I believe the Committee has already rumbled, are predominantly opportunistic. 
 Amendment No. 49 would prohibit charging for the type of fire safety advice that it should be considered the duty of an authority to provide. Yet the distinction between the type of general advice to which that prohibition would apply and detailed consultancy is a vexed issue, on which we are likely to have further debate. Consultation is already in hand about the way in which we might draw that distinction in any order made under the clause. Until we have a better understanding of the responses to that exercise, I suggest that it is premature to attempt to deal further with this matter. 
 I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendment would seriously inhibit existing practice by fire and rescue authorities in a way that could have a significant budgetary impact. At a time when people are rightly concerned about council tax levels, the Opposition should be wary about imposing blanket restrictions on the ability of fire and rescue authorities to recover some of their costs, which would inevitably lead to additional pressure on council tax. This is a classic instance of an opportunistic Opposition trying 
 to have it both ways. On the one hand they argue that council tax is too high and it is all the Government's fault, and then in the next breath, without the slightest shame, they say that the Government should stop fire and rescue authorities making any charges and let council tax bear the strain.

Philip Hammond: Does the Minister think that it is all right simply to reduce the amount that authorities can charge in cost recovery in areas where they already charge, and let the council tax take the hit of that reduction in the charges made by authorities that are currently making profits, particularly on their consultancy services?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will realise when we debate cost recovery, some authorities currently make charges that appear to be in excess of what is required to deliver the service—although there are wider definitions of the factors involved in the overall provision of the relevant service or advice. We shall deal with that later. However, the hon. Gentleman has not paid heed to the parallel legislation, the Local Government Act 2003, which puts in place a charging regime that will apply to best value authorities, and therefore to fire and rescue authorities, and will enable them, as and when they have been subject to a comprehensive performance and assessment regime—

Adrian Flook: That is about eight years away.

Nick Raynsford: No, not in eight years' time. If the hon. Member for Taunton were better informed, he would realise that the Audit Commission is already consulting on the framework for a comprehensive performance assessment for the fire service.
 I put it to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that this is the right framework, because it will allow the fire and rescue authorities in appropriate circumstances to trade, as other local authorities can. That is the correct way forward. I hope that in the light of those comments, he will seek to withdraw the amendment, and indicate his willingness to accept that there are circumstances in which cost recovery may be appropriate. I shall then be happy to consider an amendment designed to ensure that there is no inconsistency between the regimes applied by the fire and rescue services and NHS ambulances.

Philip Hammond: That was a mixed response to this group of amendments. I want to go back to the Minister's list. He triumphantly read out his list of situations in which fire and rescue authorities already charge, as if we were proposing to wipe out all those charges. I said that not one of them would be affected by the amendments, but I take the Minister's correction: it is arguable that the first one that he read out—clearing of chemical spillages, including spillages after road traffic accidents—may be relevant in some cases. Can the Minister quantify what we are talking about? How much money is recovered by charging motorists or their insurers as opposed to local authorities or the Highways Agency for clearing chemical spillages after road traffic accidents? I would
 be interested to know, but I am prepared to make a small bet with the Minister—if that if is in order, Mr. O'Hara—that the sums involved are very small.

Edward O'Hara: Order. A bet is in order as long as it is made outside the Committee.

Philip Hammond: For one horrible moment there, Mr. O'Hara, I thought that you were going to say as long as you got a cut.
 All the other issues mentioned by the Minister would not, as I understand it, fall within the functions defined under clause 8(1), clause 9 or, indeed, clause 7—the firefighting clause. Therefore, we are not talking about preventing charging for: rescuing people stuck in lift or cats stuck up trees, pumping out ponds, filling swimming pools, propping up dangerous structures, and all the other things he mentioned.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman did not mention clause 6(2), which is affected by amendment No. 49.

Philip Hammond: Let us deal with that now. It is right that a fire and rescue authority should not charge for the
''provision of information, publicity and encouragement''. 
 That is not to say that it should not charge for the smoke alarms that it installs or for some other product that it makes available—we can argue at the margins. However, I would hate the Minister to succeed in duping the Committee into believing that we seek to exclude a huge list of services for which fire and rescue authorities currently charge, and from which they raise hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue. 
 The Minister is right that there is a power to charge for road traffic accident work. It is little used. My fear is that the Bill, the Select Committee report and the Bain report represent a shift towards charging, particularly for road traffic accidents. The Minister calls the Opposition opportunistic, but, in fact, the assault on the motorist is opportunistic because in most cases he will have an insurer standing behind him who will pick up the bill and frankly he will only experience the cost as a second order imposition when he comes to pay his insurance premium, along with his neighbour who may not have been involved in any accident. Our concern is that the Government are sending a message. The Minister will say that they intend to send no such message, so I invite him to make that very clear by ruling out charging motorists or their insurers for attending the scene of an emergency. The public will draw their own conclusions from his repeated refusal to do so. I would be interested to hear the Minister tell us how much money is currently raised from charging in cases that would be excluded by this group of amendments. I imagine that it would be small.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has made an ingenious attempt to wriggle out of the position that he got himself into. The Opposition are alone in arguing that position. Is he aware that the Local Government Association, which generally takes a view that is not
 dissimilar from the one that he advocates—that the service should not charge for core activities—specifically says:
 ''The exception would be road traffic accidents where we have supported an examination of the feasibility of recovering costs from insurance companies.''?
 Why does he not recognise that he is on his own in taking this very restrictive and prescriptive approach, rather than welcoming the Government's measured approach of allowing a proper, serious analysis of where charging is appropriate and where it is not and then deciding on the right way forward?

Philip Hammond: The fact that the Labour-controlled LGA agrees with the Minister on that point, although it does not agree with him on a great deal else, does not particularly impress me. I am far from being alone: there are 27 million motorists in this country, and the large majority of them would take my side rather than the Minister's in the argument.
 The Government are being wholly opportunistic. The LGA and the fire authorities see what looks like a relatively easy source of revenue, and I do not blame them for having a go at it. However, we are here to consider what is right and balanced and the Opposition believe that there will be undesirable and unintended effects from any attempt to recover costs through insurers. There will be a motorists' revolt if what has hitherto been a publicly funded emergency service is charged for through insurers and charges are loaded onto insurance premiums. 
 If the Government go ahead with their consultation, review the subject and conclude that they want to encourage local fire authorities to charge, there is no doubt that the regime that we are putting in place through the Bill and the national framework will create an environment in which the Government will be able to tell fire authorities what they think they should and should not be doing. If the Government determine that an authority should charge for road traffic accidents, the consequences of not doing so for its best value auditing, compliance framework and budgeting process will be significant. 
 If the Minister goes down that route—he is refusing to rule it out—will he deal differently with insured and uninsured drivers? Will he levy a charge against an insurance company where there is an insurance company, but tell fire authorities that they should exempt an uninsured motorist from what might be a very substantial charge?

Nick Raynsford: That is one issue that will need to be considered, along with many others, as part of any review of the scope for introducing charges. The right way forward must be to ensure that there are no perverse incentives either to work against the interests of public safety by discouraging a response by the fire and rescue service where one is essential, or to encourage law breaking by motorists who try to evade insurance liabilities.

Philip Hammond: I cannot disagree with what the Minister says. I suppose that if he were to introduce a regime wherein an uninsured motorist could be sent a bill for a couple of thousand pounds by their local fire and rescue authority, that would have to be added—[Interruption.] Well, I would think that a couple of thousand pounds was a rather modest suggestion for a likely charge for attendance and extraction of somebody from a significant road traffic accident.
 I do not want to pre-empt the debate about costs and how they are defined in such a service where one might pay for a crew to sit for eight hours without performing a rescue, and then perform one that takes 20 minutes. How does one cost that?

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend not agree that by extending the range of charging and incentivising local fire and rescue brigades to charge, we could find ourselves in a situation where they select which accident to go to based on the amount of revenue that they might be able to generate? They have a limited number of personnel and appliances, so they might pick and choose if there were simultaneous accidents.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The intervention is getting rather long.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend highlights an interesting and, frankly, rather alarming prospect. The possibilities are endless and I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to rule out the provision and say that in real emergencies where someone is trapped in wreckage, there will be no question of who will pay. That is how we have always operated.

Stephen McCabe: The hon. Gentleman is genuinely confused. Of course, in real emergencies we want the Minister to confirm that there will be no question of the emergency services failing to turn up and perform the rescue. However, after that episode is complete, why is it unreasonable to consider the question of liability? The hon. Gentleman is confused about the two different functions.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been sitting on the Conservative benches, I would have taken that as a kindly intervention. I am not confused at all—I clearly understand the distinction. I suggest that he talks to some motorists and motorists' organisations in his constituency. When the Minister says that I am entirely alone, he shows that he has not consulted motoring organisations on the issue.
 I shall not seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I must press amendment No. 46. Before I do so, I want to address the Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister says that we will lose amendment No. 48. I am not sure what he means by that, because I understood the Minister to be suggesting that he is sympathetic to the objectives of amendment No. 48.

Nick Raynsford: I made it explicit on two occasions that I would consider taking away amendment No. 48 and choosing appropriate wording to give effect to the principle behind it—with which I have sympathy—provided that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that
 the Opposition were not opposed to the existence of charges in certain circumstances. In my view, the effect of amendment No. 46 as drafted would be to make it unlikely that a charging regime could apply in relation to road traffic accidents.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that I follow the Minister's logic, so perhaps we should explore it. Obviously I am pleased that the Minister has suggested that he wants to encourage medical co-response and does not want there to be any perverse regimes that would discourage it.
 I rather hoped that the Minister's approach to amending Bills during their parliamentary passage was to improve them rather than to play a game of tit for tat whereby the Opposition withdraws one amendment and Minister accepts another. The Minister has not convinced me that amendment No. 46 is flawed and that it would do what he suggests. Amendment No. 46 is intended to deal only with charges where the fire and rescue authority is rescuing someone from a road traffic accident or protecting them from serious harm in the event of one.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman accepted a short while ago that the first item on the list that I read out—clearing up after chemical spillages, including at road traffic accidents—was the largest source of charging: 63 per cent. of respondent authorities charge in such circumstances. I find it difficult to see how he can now argue that amendment No. 46 does not have the adverse consequence that I suggested.

Philip Hammond: It is not clear to me that that follows at all. I read clause 8(1) narrowly:
''rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents . . . protecting people from serious harm . . . in the event of road traffic accidents in its area.'' 
It is not clear to me that the fire and rescue service has the primary responsibility for clearing the carriageway after an accident. I do not think that that is the case. Therefore, I suspect that when the fire and rescue authority undertakes clearance of the carriageway, it is undertaking a responsibility that belongs to the highway authority in that area. However, I stand to be corrected by the Minister.

Nick Raynsford: I am even more astonished by the hon. Gentleman's inability to understand that cleaning up after a chemical spillage at a road traffic accident is not
''protecting people from serious harm''.

Philip Hammond: It would depend on the nature of the chemical, I suspect. What we still have not had from the Minister is a figure. What is the magnitude of the activity?

Nick Raynsford: Sixty-three per cent.

Philip Hammond: We want to know how much money is involved. Sixty-three per cent. of authorities say that they do sometimes levy a charge in those circumstances. That tells us nothing about the amount of money raised and nothing about how many times authorities make charges in those circumstances. Although I am grateful to the Minister for
 acknowledging the purpose behind amendment No. 48, the purpose of amendment No. 46 is to exclude the possibility of charging for the extraction of victims from road traffic accidents. I will not be bought off by the Minister saying that he is prepared to look at correcting a defect in the drafting of the Bill—a defect to which amendment No. 48 has drawn attention—to ensure that there are no perverse disincentives to medial co-response schemes. That offer will not make me withdraw an amendment that deals with the critical issue of the Government targeting motorists insurers by seeking to pass the burden of paying for road traffic accidents from the taxpayer—the current situation—to the motorist.

Nick Raynsford: If it was the hon. Gentleman's intention simply to limit, in the narrow way that he describes, the purpose of amendment No. 46 to preventing fire and rescue authorities from charging for extracting people from road traffic accidents, why did he word the amendment in a way that means that it covers all the responsibilities in clause 8(1)?

Philip Hammond: I am prepared, as I always have to be on these occasions, to accept criticism of my drafting skills, as I always have to be on these occasions. If the Minister would like to loan me parliamentary counsel the next time we have one of these little outings, it will probably be a bit easier to get the amendment precisely right. The principle that we are addressing is clear. The Minister has been given every opportunity to say that the Government have no intention of pursuing the agenda of making motorists and their insurers routinely responsible for the costs of road traffic accidents, and that is all that we are looking for. If the Minister had given us that assurance, we would have withdrawn the amendment, but he has not, and therefore I have no choice but to press the amendment to a vote and urge my hon. Friends to vote for it.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
clause 19, page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 162, in
clause 19, page 9, line 20, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 21 and insert 
 'must publish a list which specifies the amounts the authority will charge in specific circumstances and in which circumstances they will charge nothing.'.

Philip Hammond: We had a disappointing result in the last debate, but we will move on; we live to fight another day.
 Subsection (3) gives the power to authorise a charge to be imposed on a third party. We have largely had this debate already, and it is clear to me that the Government have motor insurers in mind. During our debates, the Minister has also placed much emphasis on the owners of buildings in which people get trapped in lifts, so owners of buildings are another class of third party. It would be interesting for the Committee to hear other examples that the Government have in mind in seeking this power to levy charges on third parties. 
 I can see that insurers are a politically easy target. They are generally large companies and they probably do not complain too loudly because they recover the costs from the people they insure; no elector is hit directly with a large bill. When we consider the owners of buildings, we run into a different area. If a block has 20 or 30 privately owned flats, the tenants will own the block through a management company or some other arrangement. The easy option of the deep-pocketed wicked capitalist in the background who owns the building and can be made to pay for his misdeeds will not be there, and the burden that the Government are imposing will trickle down, as will any burden imposed on insurers. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 50 is to exclude the provision to charge third parties. On the insurance example, I would much prefer that the charges were levied—if they have to be levied at all—against an individual, who can always recover the amount from his insurers. Charging the individual rather than a third party would give the reassurance that the million or so motorists driving without insurance will not get away with it. I note that the Minister chose his words carefully, and I accept, because of what I know of him, that by instinct he would not want to enable people who fail to pay motor insurance to get away with it. However, charges of several thousand pounds against an individual will give rise to difficult consequences; people will be dragged through the courts for non-payment, and we already know that two thirds of fines do not get collected. It is probably impractical to collect large sums from people who are uninsured. The insured, law-abiding motorist will pay; the uninsured motorist, sadly, almost certainly will not. I am wary about the ability to charge third parties. 
 Will the Minister give further examples in which such charging would apply, other than those involving building owners and motor insurers? It would go down well in my constituency if every time a person's basement was flooded and they had to pay the fire 
 brigade to pump them out, they could recover the cost from the Environment Agency, but I do not suppose that was what the Minister had in mind. 
 Amendment No. 162 addresses a different issue. In the consultation paper on charging, the Government made it clear that they envisage charges being made on an ad hoc basis, with authorities making judgments about people's ability to pay. In my view, that approach is wholly wrong. We do not want a situation in which every time there is an incident, some kind of sub-committee of the fire authority has to decide whether to charge and how much to charge. That would lack transparency, and it would be wholly unsatisfactory. If we are going to have charges, there should be a standard charge about which people know in advance, rather than individual cases being dealt with differently, which could give rise to very inequitable outcomes, certainly between fire authorities and even within a fire authority. 
 I emphasise that I have no difficulty with fire authorities being allowed to exercise the discretion to waive a charge in cases of obvious or extreme hardship. However, that is different from setting a charge on an individual basis. We should not be envisaging a situation in which the make and value of the car in an accident determines how much the fire authority charges the victim's insurers for the work that it does at the scene. That does not seem to be an appropriate way to proceed. The amendment would require an authority to publish the amounts that it will charge in certain specified circumstances and to be clear about the circumstances in which it will not levy a charge. I shall not bother going round the loop again of explaining to the Minister how fraught with risk his proposals are.

Edward O'Hara: I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to try to do so.

Philip Hammond: I do not want to disappoint you, Mr. O'Hara, but I shall not bother going round the loop again, although the Minister would be wise to think hard about the implications of going down his intended route.

Nick Raynsford: Amendment No. 15 would prevent any charge from being imposed on, or recovered from, a person if that person had not been the immediate beneficiary of the action taken. I have made clear our wish to leave open the possibility of recovering charges from insurers. A scheme already operates within the NHS when the insurer, not the individual, bears the costs directly. No such recovery would be possible if the amendment were to be accepted. It would leave open the possibility that the individuals involved would be left to bear the charge.
 The hon. Gentleman referred to potential levels of charges. I am advised that the average cost of NHS attendance at a road traffic accident is about £250 per hour, which is less than the large figure that has been suggested. I also know that the NHS schemes apparently yield about £100 million a year, which is a substantial level of revenue.

Philip Hammond: The Minister quoted an important figure when he said that the average cost of NHS attendance is £250. It would be wrong for the Committee to think that the attendance of fire crews at an accident would involve the same cost. In typical circumstances, an ambulance crew is made up of two people, and the cost of maintaining that crew would be less than the cost of maintaining a fully crewed fire appliance. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of fire service attendance at an accident would be significantly higher than that of NHS ambulance trust attendance.

Nick Raynsford: My purpose in mentioning the figure was not to draw a comparison with the potential cost of attendance by the fire and rescue service, but to highlight the significant yield from the NHS scheme of about £100 million a year. Incidentally, I gather that the estimated impact on insurance of a scheme that generates that amount per annum is about £3 a year on an insurance policy. The extraordinary rhetoric that we heard from the Conservative party about the deterrent effect that such a measure would have on anyone who paid for legitimate insurance and the incentive that it would provide to individuals not to insure themselves seems wide of the mark.
 The amendment would prevent the recovery of a charge from the owners, managers or operators of a building who were cavalier in their approach to the maintenance of lifts. We have already discussed lift rescue. I wish to inform the Committee that, in London alone, lift rescues account for more than 17,000 incidents a year. If the amendment were to be accepted, those who avoided the cost of regular lift maintenance could take comfort from the knowledge that the fire service would effect a release without exposing them to the risk of a charge. In case anyone has misinterpreted me, I want to make it absolutely clear once again that we are not talking about discouraging or delaying the response of the fire and rescue service to emergencies. We are talking about permitting charging for certain activities in appropriate circumstances—and only in appropriate circumstances—following very thoughtful and rigorous discussion by all interested parties, which is what we are doing. The Opposition seem to have great difficulty in accepting that principle.

Philip Hammond: I hesitate to question the Minister's figure, but will he check the figure of £100 million and make sure that it really is the cost of ambulance attendance at the scene? He will remember that the Act in question allows NHS trusts to recover the cost of treatment arising out of road traffic accidents. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the figure does not embrace treatment as well as attendance at the scene?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right: that is the total figure for the NHS scheme at the moment. However, £100 million a year is a significant yield.

Philip Hammond: The Minister must make it clear that we are not talking about revenue to an NHS ambulance trust. That revenue will be a tiny fraction of that amount. The serious revenue will be the cost of hospital treatment collected by NHS acute trusts.

Nick Raynsford: Obviously, I accept that the cost involves the potential yield to NHS hospitals as well as to ambulance trusts. I was simply trying to illustrate the scale of the revenue involved, and to suggest that it is not something to treat lightly, which I believe that the Opposition have been doing.
 Flooding is another issue. The fire and rescue service already deals with incidents of significant flooding and has the power to charge for action taken. That was one of the areas that I highlighted when listing the items for which authorities already make charges. Each authority must now determine whether it is appropriate in light of all relevant circumstances to impose a charge in such a situation. Authorities should continue to enjoy that right. Unfortunately, the amendment would strip them of it. That is another example of the highly restrictive centralising tendencies of the Opposition, despite their protestations that they are in favour of localism. The rhetoric that they employ to try to appeal to the motorist takes precedence over their localising instincts, which they have currently forgotten. 
 I can understand fears that every person who is unfortunate enough to suffer a tidal surge might find themselves with a bill for pumping out. That is not the case. However, it is appropriate in certain circumstances to charge for that. The amendment would delete subsection (3), but that could be used to allow authorities to recover from insurers the cost of responding to flooding incidents. 
 I should touch on automatic fire alarms, which we addressed in the previous debate. The hon. Member for Taunton raised the question of the Oxford initiative and Somerset fire authority's examination of that scheme. The Oxford protocol draws a distinction between residential and commercial premises. Where someone is in attendance, the brigade needs to confirm that there is a fire, but where no one is in attendance, there is no necessary presumption on the brigade attending. The reason for that is obvious: if the focus is on saving lives, empty premises are not necessarily the highest priority, particularly if there is a known history of malfunctioning fire alarms at them. 
 That is part of a risk-based assessment, and I am pleased to say that the evidence of the Oxford protocol is that attendance at false alarms has been reduced by 70 per cent. When a fire crew is still available to deal with real alarms rather than being deployed in responding to a false alarm, it is able to cope with genuine life-threatening incidents. Attending false alarms is a waste of public money and firefighters' time.

Adrian Flook: That was precisely my point. A 70 per cent. reduction sounds very helpful in terms of saving costs and the deployment of manpower, but that figure cannot be much more up to date than the figure that
 the Somerset fire brigade was relying on; it is a matter of months. No one has given me any information about the rurality of the reduction in call-outs, which would be important to know in rural counties.

Nick Raynsford: This is a classic instance of the integrated risk management planning process allowing fire and rescue authorities to analyse the needs of their area, to look particularly at the risk to life, and to focus on saving lives rather than on necessarily responding automatically to incidents in accordance with the categories of premises defined in the 1940s. That was the major determinant of speed of response and the number of appliances to send to an incident. The new integrated risk management planning process is preferable as it gives greater focus to saving lives. I hope that this initiative will allow fire and rescue authorities to concentrate their resources in the best and most effective way to save lives.
 Amendment No. 162 would require an authority to compile an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it might seek to levy a charge that has been specified by order. It would also require an authority to specify the circumstances in which it would charge nothing for one of those services. That seems an overly restrictive approach and one that is likely to constrain an authority's ability to exercise its discretion appropriately. It could have some perverse consequences. 
 Let us consider the practical effects of the amendment. Having decided that in general it will charge for one of the specified services, an authority then seeks to compile an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which it does not consider it appropriate to make a charge. Some time later, however, an entirely novel situation is encountered, and, by definition, it would not have been covered in the nil charge list, so the presumption must be that a charge had been made. The authority could consider it unjust to seek to levy or recover the charge, but the amendment would prevent it from not levying a charge because it would be bound by its previous decision even though the circumstances involved had not been taken into account when the decision was taken. 
 Opposition Members may say that in such circumstances the authority would be able to review its list, which of course it would be able to do. But unless any subsequent amendment was to have retrospective effect, which is a difficult issue, it could be too late to prevent the imposition of an unjust charge in the specific case. Apart from such perverse consequences, the amendment would involve an unduly restrictive and bureaucratic process, which strongly argues against accepting it. 
 I accept that Opposition Members wish to have a clear public statement by an authority, perhaps on an annual basis, as to how it will go about determining a charge and possibly even what the charge might be in terms of an hourly rate. Some authorities already do that, and the Government would be happy to see it become the norm. Indeed, we have suggested in the recent consultation document some bases on which the 
 charge may be calculated, and I see no reason why an authority should not be open about the methodology that it has adopted. However, to require a detailed exegesis of how and when the authority will exercise its inherent discretion would be a recipe for undermining that discretion, and it might have unfortunate and unintended consequences at a later date. I hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I listened carefully to the Minister. I shall first address his comments on amendment No. 162. I can see the practical difficulties of the tariff approach, which I do not dispute. I was hoping to elicit from the Minister a commitment that there would be transparency in the process. I am not exaggerating when I say that I can envisage a sub-committee of a fire authority sitting down every third Tuesday in the month with a list of incidents and submissions to decide whether a charge should be levied. My concern is about discrimination between individuals or groups of individuals in a fire authority's charging practices. The consultation paper and other documents do not reassure me on that front. Much greater clarity is required.
 In one document, there is a reference to the unemployed being exempt from charges—that is a clear group, which we could easily define. But there will be many other special pleading cases, and we do not want to get into a situation where fire and rescue authorities are routinely adjudicating substantial charges. We know what will happen. A certain group of people will get their bill and pay it, and another large group will play the system by contesting and arguing until the authority in question realises that it is costing it more to process the charge than it will receive in revenue, even if it wins the argument and gets the money in the end, which often it does not. I guess that that is the same with congestion charging fines or parking tickets. I am therefore concerned about the lack of transparency, but I accept the Minister's criticism that the tariff approach will not be the perfect solution. 
 I thought that the Minister's flooding example in a case where third parties might be charged was interesting. Again, it treads on a few local sensitivities in my constituency, because many people living by the river cannot get household insurance as a result of the repeated flooding, so they will not see their insurers pick up the cost of pumping out their basements. No one has suggested that there should be a prohibition on charging for pumping out basements or for pumping buildings free of water, but I see nothing in the Bill that would prevent a fire authority from charging for rescuing a person from an upstairs window of a flooded building. We do not want a fire brigade arriving at a flooded building with its rescue equipment to be asked by a person leaning out of a first-floor window, ''How much are you going to charge me? Until I know, I would rather wait here in this flooded building until my next-door neighbour has been down to Brighton to collect his boat and come back to get me,'' or ''I'll wait until my husband comes home from work, gets the ladder out of the garage and rescues me.'' We clearly do not want that to happen. 
 I have exaggerated the case, in the hope of bringing a smile to my hon. Friends' faces in an otherwise tedious section of the debate, but that situation could really arise. Somebody could be trapped in a building by floodwater, which is clearly not satisfactory, even if they were not in immediate danger. It is not at all fanciful to think that they would have to ask, ''Will it cost me anything if I accept your offer of rescue by aerial platform from the second-floor window?'' 
 There are issues that we need to explore further, but I am prepared to accept that the debate has been had on amendment No. 46; the vote has happened, and we 
 lost that vote. It would be inappropriate to press amendment No. 50, which is closely linked to that previous group of amendments, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Continued in column 219]